earticle

영어

In this article, I analyzed the characteristics in Nam Kongchuls understanding of Confucian cannons and his approach to The Book of Odes. I focused on the way in which Nam Kongchul proposed his questions and on the references from which he found the answers.

Nam Kongchul is regarded as one of the major contributors in the history of the study on Confucian classics in the Late Chosun Dynasty. His unique approach to the Confucian classics is the result of his broad researches over the accumulated contributions of outstanding scholars to the field since Han Dynasty. China. Nam Kongchul firmly believed that Confucius original ideas about canons should be the main purpose of his research. He attempted to explain the meanings in canons in his own terms. However, he accepted the interpretations of the scholars in Han Dynasty as well as those of Neo-Confucian scholars if the interpretations were appropriate.

Compared with his approaches to Confucian canons in general, Nam Kongchuls analysis of The Book of Odes appears to be weak in term of depth and originality. Although he had a comprehensive knowledge about previous and contemporary studies on The Book of Odes. he tried to establish his interpretation within the structure of Chu Hee[Ch. Zhu Xi]s theory. In this sense, Nam Kongchul represents the mainstream of academia at that time whereas Chung Yakyongs work is regarded as an independent movement outside the mainstream.

Nam Kongchul as a bureaucrat in the court had a close relationship with other scholars such as Kim Chosoon, Suh Yungbo, Shim Sangkyu and Yi Mansoo. who served as bureaucrats in the court. If their approaches to Confucian canons are also examined on top of this article on Nam Kongchul. the common approach, which the literati in the court shared, will be clearly revealed. In order to achieve a more accurate result, the further researches on those mainstream scholars in the court should include the comparison between the individual differences of their approaches as well as the analysis of their common ground as conservatives.